The "Big 8" Challenge 2011

ecoli

Here is the IAAF scoring tables interesting to compare the times according to the sports governing body

a 4.59 miles is equivalent to a 3.10 marathon

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/ScoringOutdoor2008_742.pdf

Condo131

Using Howard Grubb's WMA calculator, this is what come up for women:

Name|1mile<5:38|3k<11:22|5k<22:54|5mile<33:57|10k<45:06|10miles<67:10|Half Mar<100:05|Mar<3:15:12
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||


While you youngsters are all hitting away at the Open targets, some of the 'elder lemon' equivalents are like this:

M55
Name|1 mile<5:57|3k<11:53|5k<23:46|5mile<35:39|10k<47:32|10miles<81:04|Half Mar<106:17|Mar<3:30:22
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||


If people are interested, I can do tables for the other age categories, male and female. Any takers???

Fwiw, I reckon that the open times for 5k, 10k, HM and Mar are very soft. I reckon that those ones are all still within striking distance ...even though I'm nearer to 60 than 55!!

PS Hopefully these tables come out OK - preview is showing issues.

BeepBeep67

Condo131 wrote: »

If people are interested, I can do tables for the other age categories, male and female.

Quick everyone duck!

RacoonQueen

I think we should just stick to the original idea, which everyone has agreed is a good one. Either just one table, although I think it'll only be men participating then(similar to the best of 2010 thread) as I don't think we have women except maybe Magnet and Seres who can get near most of the mens times, unless there are lurkers who might be encouraged to post in the one table scenario, or, have two tables, one for mens times and one for womens times.

Gringo78

Condo131 wrote: »

If people are interested, I can do tables for the other age categories, male and female. Any takers???

Fwiw, I reckon that the open times for 5k, 10k, HM and Mar are very soft. I reckon that those ones are all still within striking distance ...even though I'm nearer to 60 than 55!!

I don't think age graded tables are in order. I mean, if you're in your 50's then that means you were running in the 1980's when men were men and a sub 60 10 miler was a recovery run, so sub 60 now should be still well attainable, so the age thing kinda balances out really.

Condo131

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Quick everyone duck!

Not nice! :P:P

I know you're M40 and possibly consider yourself still in the open category, but there are several Masters on Boards that are producing age equivalent times *FAR* better than the targets being suggested. One can be a purist and account simply for straight times, thus overlooking some superb age category performances.

YFlyer

[/TABLE]

If people are interested, I can do tables for the other age categories, male and female. Any takers???

[/QUOTE]

Yes please for over 35s

TheRoadRunner

YFlyer wrote: »

Yes please for over 35s

Can I have a special table for 32-33 year old athletes. Also a sub table for those who are aires and have blue eyes. A sub-sub table for those 32 year old, Airians with blue eyes and size 11 feet would be nice as well

I jest of course, maybe just better going with the original times and see how things progress.

Condo131

Gringo78 wrote: »

I don't think age graded tables are in order.

Fair enough.

Gringo78 wrote: »

I mean, if you're in your 50's then that means you were running in the 1980's when men were men and a sub 60 10 miler was a recovery run

Thanks!

Gringo78 wrote: »

So sub 60 now should be still well attainable, so the age thing kinda balances out really.

That doesn't follow:
The age equivalents of 60 min for Senior men are:
40 - 1:02:53
45 - 1:05:24
50 - 1:08:08
55 - 1:11:07
60 - 1:14:21


...and yes! I still beat myself up that I can't break 60 anymore.

Btw 1: Flor O'Leary, Ballycotton 1994, ran 59:15 at age 60! This is the open age equivalent of 47:49!!!

Btw 2, I made a mistake with at least one of the times posted in the earlier M55 table.

thirtyfoot

Can we bring in gait factor? Also, maybe weight divisions?

I think we need to be rid of the Benjamin Button style age calculators. For me you have age categories up to 23 and then it's one big age group. But, that's another days stirring.

Original plan looks good, if the oldies feel they can't be competitive they know what to do. The dreaded R.

I like the idea of the league with promotion and relegation.

Might encourage me to join the conference.

donothoponpop

Appreciate what you're trying to do Condo, but maybe just leave the challenge as it is, until it gets a bit of momentum. The idea is to have a challenge that is for faster runners, and not dilute it so there is something that will suit everybody (thinking being there is enough of that on the forum as it is). In any case there are a huge number of M55's (and W) who have no problem hitting those times in races week in week out.

For anybody who thinks the posted times are too easy- I'm going to keep repeating this one point as long as it comes up- the table specifically says <5mins, <10 mins, etc. "<" means "less than", so if you can run faster than <5mins for a mile, we're into the realm of negative time, and you should be buying last weeks winning lotto ticket.

The challenge is simple: hit those 8 times in 2011. Talk about training and racing and nutrition will be useful for everyone, but the challenge (and the thread) is for runners who can beat those times. It's not just tick the box and move on, you might hit all the times and finish last. It's to encourage a bit of competition and focus on the faster runners here, and its elite only in the sense that if you can't hit those times you can't participate (but I would encourage anyone who feels left out to train harder and better).

Condo131

thirtyfoot wrote: »

..........if the oldies feel they can't be competitive they know what to do. The dreaded R.

It's not that the Masters can't be competitive.....we are that and more!....but when we see suggested targets that, as Gringo78 puts it "you were running in the 1980's when men were men and a sub 60 10 miler was a recovery run", then I say why not have Masters categories.

You want competitive.....then set some decent targets!!!

As for the dreaded R.....I presume that you meant to hit the next key, "T", and meant that the Masters start their own thread on the subject. Then you can play all day with your ball and take an occasional look 'over the wall' and see how the Masters are doing and, maybe, in age equivalent terms, hammering the soft senior targets..or even bettering them outright!

If Masters categories aren't wanted here but if masters are interested, I can do up the tables and we can start a separate Masters thread.

TheRoadRunner

Condo131 wrote: »

It's not that the Masters can't be competitive.....we are that and more!....but when we see suggested targets that, as Gringo78 puts it "you were running in the 1980's when men were men and a sub 60 10 miler was a recovery run", then I say why not have Masters categories.

You want competitive.....then set some decent targets!!!

As for the dreaded R.....I presume that you meant to hit the next key, "T", and meant that the Masters start their own thread on the subject. Then you can play all day with your ball and take an occasional look 'over the wall' and see how the Masters are doing and, maybe, in age equivalent terms, hammering the soft senior targets..or even bettering them outright!

If Masters categories aren't wanted here but if masters are interested, I can do up the tables and we can start a separate Masters thread.

it's fecking ageism that's what it is Condo ageism

You need to rally the troops and get a bit of this at the doors of Boards.ie. The bastards

RacoonQueen

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Can we bring in gait factor? Also, maybe weight divisions?

I think we need to be rid of the Benjamin Button style age calculators. For me you have age categories up to 23 and then it's one big age group. But, that's another days stirring.

Original plan looks good, if the oldies feel they can't be competitive they know what to do. The dreaded R.

I like the idea of the league with promotion and relegation.

Might encourage me to join the conference.

Seeing as you're here. Do you think that it should just be one set of times for men and women? Or do you think we should have a seperate set of times for women? If so, what times do you think should be set for women?

On reflection, I think one set of times should suit. Most of the time bands for women that have been put up here I could push on if I raced well. Which means they must be too soft, there's no way in hell I'd be up with the good club runners.

TheRoadRunner

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Also, maybe weight divisions?

All joking aside I ran a race in the states before and they had weight divisions. Over 200lbs and you were a "Clydesdale". Just had a look at the website have a look at the results at the bottom of this link for an example

Standard in the race was absolutely $hite but Jesus there was some buffet, they had a chef cooking up omelets etc. I think the quality of the buffet was directly linked to the shocking standard, another 3 months of those weekly races and TheRoadRunner would have been a super weight Clydesdale.

thirtyfoot

Condo131 wrote: »

Then you can play all day with your ball and take an occasional look 'over the wall' and see how the Masters are doing

Sadly I would be with you lot on your side of the wall playing bridge while the young guns are playing ball on the other side. Since Benjamin Buttonism doesn't do it for me I'll have to sit and watch although if Roadrunner Clydesdale concept did kick off here I might again don the lycra. Would we have to change that weight catergory to pie-bald for Ireland?

thirtyfoot

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Seeing as you're here. Do you think that it should just be one set of times for men and women? Or do you think we should have a seperate set of times for women? If so, what times do you think should be set for women?

.

Yes, I think there should be a womens one. Seeing as the Racing Flat standards have general consensus, how about the IAAF Scoring charts equivalent of these for the women?

Gringo78

Condo131 wrote: »

Fair enough.
Thanks!

That doesn't follow:
The age equivalents of 60 min for Senior men are:
40 - 1:02:53
45 - 1:05:24
50 - 1:08:08
55 - 1:11:07
60 - 1:14:21


...and yes! I still beat myself up that I can't break 60 anymore.

Btw 1: Flor O'Leary, Ballycotton 1994, ran 59:15 at age 60! This is the open age equivalent of 47:49!!!

Btw 2, I made a mistake with at least one of the times posted in the earlier M55 table.

Condo, I meant that in a tongue-in-cheek complimentary type way. I of course know that 60min is a savage time for a 50 year old.

However, you don't actually need age graded tables, just correct your time back and put in a masters column to indicate the age & a column to show actual time and then stick in the corrected time?? That way you can directly show you are whipping our soft celtic tiger asses.

Condo131

Gringo78 wrote: »

Condo, I meant that in a tongue-in-cheek complimentary type way. I of course know that 60min is a savage time for a 50 year old.

I know that! Taken in the spirit intended!

Gringo78 wrote: »

However, you don't actually need age graded tables, just correct your time back and put in a masters column to indicate the age & a column to show actual time and then stick in the corrected time?? That way you can directly show you are whipping our soft celtic tiger asses.

Thanks for the suggestion, however it is, apparently, hoped that the standards proposed in the tables may induce previous (faster) posters to return to the forum, so Masters performances are not welcome, unless they match/better the table times. [If I were to run 60:00 for 10M (btw, not even a PB) this would be the equivalent of a 30 year old running 49:44 - that would be a PB!]

I can understand the intent, but imho, the proposals are a blinkered approach and are not based on an understanding of Internationally accepted genuine recognised standards. I suggested the use of WMA tables and the response on the thread, to date, imho, indicates a complete lack of understanding of the what they are, where they come from and the whole basis of standards.

I sympathise with the intent of those behind the thread, but, frankly, I feel I'm banging my head against a granite wall. :( If people want to improve the 'quality' of the forum, a more holistic approach is probably goin g to produce better results - a single Table isn't going to do it.

Quality counts! ........and quality can be measured against many standards!

Gringo78

Condo131 wrote: »

I know that! Taken in the spirit intended!


Thanks for the suggestion, however it is, apparently, hoped that the standards proposed in the tables may induce previous (faster) posters to return to the forum, so Masters performances are not welcome, unless they match/better the table times. [If I were to run 60:00 for 10M (btw, not even a PB) this would be the equivalent of a 30 year old running 49:44 - that would be a PB!]

I can understand the intent, but imho, the proposals are a blinkered approach and are not based on an understanding of Internationally accepted genuine recognised standards. I suggested the use of WMA tables and the response on the thread, to date, imho, indicates a complete lack of understanding of the what they are, where they come from and the whole basis of standards.

I sympathise with the intent of those behind the thread, but, frankly, I feel I'm banging my head against a granite wall. :( If people want to improve the 'quality' of the forum, a more holistic approach is probably goin g to produce better results - a single Table isn't going to do it.

Quality counts! ........and quality can be measured against many standards!

Hmmm....I agree. If the intent is to get faster runners back, then the targets are way too soft. If 60min 10 miler is accepted as being the toughest target then once you have ticked that off, the rest only require showing up at the race. A 2:40 marathoner will probably tick off 10 miles <60min at some point in normal training so it ain't really setting the bar too high then for faster runners.

I do think though that age corrected times should be allowed to be posted, its definetly not lowering the bar.

donothoponpop

Condo131 wrote: »

... imho, the proposals are a blinkered approach and are not based on an understanding of Internationally accepted genuine recognised standards.

Nor do they claim to be, far from it. The idea is very simple, a challenge to see who can run all 8 of Racing Flat's big 8 times in a year- not based on Internationally accepted genuine recognised standards, not based on elite times, not based what specific posters think is hard or easy, not based on anything except what one of the better posters from yesteryear considered general "round number" times that an average club level athlete could do.

Run faster than a five minute mile, and you'll move up the table. Run slower, and you'll need to train harder and try again. It's pitched towards the faster runners on this forum, and is not inclusive, which is why I asked that Masters, or graded, tables not be included. (I can see the merit of allowing a Ladies version, although that will give Masters a stick to beat me with).

It's a bit of fun, a challenge, whose main focus is not point scoring, but to focus some attention exclusively on the faster runners of the forum. Too many graded tables will dilute that initial focus, (whatever about adding graded tables down the line).

TheRoadRunner

How about we go with RFs original times in a table. We all agree some are way too soft but feck it they are nice round numbers.

Condo could set up a separate thread with his own table that can account for age related equivalents. I do think this is getting a bit too complicated.

DustyBin

Nice round targets, some are easier than others, all are pretty well established benchmarks for any runner to aspire to better at some stage of their development. Whats not to like about it?

Simple targets, simple rules, DNHOP's thread, his rules, game on

For those who want to try and compare age weighted results against one another this is clearly not the thread for it - give over.
Having said that, woddle had exactly just such a thread about a year ago or so that succinctly compared different race distances across different age groups and different sexes into one single table expressed as a percentage. And as a bonus it was all based on the Howard Grubb calculator linked above. It was a much better format than trying to have 14 different versions of Racing Flats table on the bounce - why not resurrect woddles thread instead?

oldrunner

Condo131 wrote: »

If people are interested, I can do tables for the other age categories, male and female. Any takers???

Fwiw, I reckon that the open times for 5k, 10k, HM and Mar are very soft. I reckon that those ones are all still within striking distance ...even though I'm nearer to 60 than 55!!

I am a bit confused, I assumed the original targets were for Masters runners

BeepBeep67

A real challege - could be age related also

Name|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs|Keep Condo, Tunney, BeepBeep, et al happy
Senor Example||||||||||
AN Other||||||||


Well it is Friday

DustyBin

DustyBin wrote: »

woddle had exactly just such a thread about a year ago or so that succinctly compared different race distances across different age groups and different sexes into one single table expressed as a percentage. And as a bonus it was all based on the Howard Grubb calculator linked above. It was a much better format than trying to have 14 different versions of Racing Flats table on the bounce - why not resurrect woddles thread instead?

Here it is: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055710969&page=7

TheRoadRunner

oldrunner wrote: »

I am a bit confused, I assumed the original targets were for Masters runners

yep I know plenty of masters who would hammer out those times any day of the week

donothoponpop

Here's one of the nice things about having that "soft" 5k target- there's a lot on the forum who can't hit it, but with dedicated training they could. It's hoped they could learn training tips and better practice from those faster runners on this thread. Now say they find they prefer the speedwork part of their training- they focus on that aspect, and start aiming for the mile as a goal. Should they be more suited to distance, they start into some of the longer targets. So while its the softest target, the 5k one could act as an intro to many posters here upping their game.

On those questioning the benefit of training for a 5 min mile and a 3 hr marathon in the same year, (it should be do-able), but there will probably be a "rollover" facility, so you could stay on the board using 2011 times in 2012. Jan 1st 2011 is the cutoff starting point though, you have to start somewhere!

--amadeus--

I'm not sure that another "challenge" thread will draw people into posting
, tbh. The mega threads end up as a strong community updating a table without an awful lot of chatter and we have a lot of those already with the 1000 miles, SCR, push up and streak threads.

If it's quality training advice on fast times you're after then you'd br better starting threads on that (like the sub 60 thread on here) not just a "I'm a really fast runner me" type self congrats thread

shotgunmcos

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm not sure that another "challenge" thread will draw people into posting
, tbh. The mega threads end up as a strong community updating a table without an awful lot of chatter and we have a lot of those already with the 1000 miles, SCR, push up and streak threads.

Ideally you would have chatter on those threads but the tables are just so cumbersome. They take over the screen and those without 5mb+ probably find it slow to update them. We seem obsessed with tables on ART, possibly one of the Mods can suggest something like a scrolling table to one of the developers? For example the table can only be so long but has a scroll bar. That would mean that you could maybe limit the table view to 10 lines, leaving room in the post to add comments. Sorry to go off topic somewhat DP but as this 'challenge' would involve yet another table and possibly (with all the sub20 5k aspirants) another very long one aka the 1000mile monster! I think I update the 1000 one about 4 times this year as it was a bit of a pain. I'm scratching my head about the SCR challenge and how I could make it easier.

Back on topic, can you knock off the big 8 in training runs or must they be races? Races really limits it further